Case of the Day: Argentina v. BG Group


The Blogatory case of the day is Republic of Argentina v. BG Group, plc, Civ. A. No. 08-485 (D.D.C. Jan. 21, 2011), a decision on confirmation of an arbitral award under the Argentina-U.K. bilateral investment treaty. After the financial crisis of 2001, the Argentine government enacted emergency legislation that, according to BG Group, an investor in a formerly state-owned gas distribution company, expropriated BG’s investment and unfairly discriminated against BG. An arbitral tribunal sitting in New York and Washington rejected the claim of expropriation but found that Argentina had breached the BIT by “fundamentally modifying the investment regulatory framework” and “unilaterally withdrawing commitments which induced BG to make its investment in Argentina.” It awarded $185 million in damages.

Argentina sought to vacate or modify the award, and BG group filed a cross-motion seeking to confirm the award. In an earlier decision, the Court denied Argentina’s motion, rejecting the arguments that the tribunal had exceeded its authority under the BIT, that the tribunal had acted in manifest disregard of the law, that the tribunal was biased, and that the award was irrational.

The case of the day deals with BG’s cross-motion seeking recognition and enforcement of the award, and Argentina’s objections that the tribunal exceeded its powers and that the award was contrary to public policy.

On the issue of the tribunal exceeding its powers, Article V(1)(c) of the Convention permits the court to refuse recognition and enforcement if:

the award deals with a difference not contemplated by or not falling within the terms of the submission to arbitration, or it contains decisions on matters beyond the scope of the submission to arbitration, provided that, if the decisions on matters submitted to arbitration can be separated from those not so submitted, that part of the award which contains decisions on matters submitted to arbitration may be recognized and enforced.

The court suggested, in a lengthy dictum, that Article V(1)(c) does not allow courts to refuse recognition and enforcement on grounds that the tribunal exceeded its authority. But the court avoided reaching a holding on that point because it had already ruled, in denying Argentina’s motion to vacate the award, that the tribunal had not exceeded its authority.

On the claim that the award violated US public policy, the Court emphasized the narrowness of the public policy exception and then dismissed Argentina’s arguments one by one. First, on the argument that Argentina had not agreed to arbitrate the dispute and that public policy only allows a party to be compelled to arbitrate if it has consented, the court noted that the tribunal had rejected Argentina’s argument about the scope of the agreement to arbitrate and held that it had to defer to the tribunal’s interpretation of the BIT. Second, on Argentina’s argument that the damages really belonged to the gas distribution company rather than to BG, and that BG was asserting a derivative claim contrary to public policy, the court held that BG was an intended third-party beneficiary of the BIT that was entitled to bring its claim under principles of American law. (The Court might instead have questioned whether Argentina’s argument on this point was in reality a challenge to the US’s “most basic notions of morality and justice,” as would be necessary to sustain a public policy argument). Third, the tribunal rejected on the merits Argentina’s argument that the award of damages was based on a flawed methodology and gave a windfall, though again, one might question whether the arguments, even if right on the merits, would have warranted the Court in invoking the public policy exception.


8 responses to “Case of the Day: Argentina v. BG Group”

  1. […] Inv. Co. v. DynCorp Aerospace Tech., No. 09-791 (D.D.C. Jan. 21, 2011), is Judge Walton’s second opinion on confirmation of an international arbitral award in a week.  Way to go, Judge […]

  2. […] Group II meeting We’ve reported a few of times on investment treaty arbitrations (the Argentina v. BG Group case, and the judicial assistance applications arising out of the Lago Agrio litigation, here and […]

  3. […] on account of measures it took to deal with its financial crisis (we previously reported on Argentina v. BG Group, which also arose out of the Argentine crisis and also involved a claim by a British investor). The […]

  4. […] Argentine sovereign debt after the country’s financial crisis. We have previously reported on Argentina v. BG Group, confirming an award against Argentina under the Argentina/UK BIT; Argentine Republic v. National […]

  5. […] case of the day, Republic of Argentina v. BG Group plc (D.C. Cir. 2012), is related to one of the very first Letters Blogatory cases of the day. The case arises out of the Argentine financial crisis in 2001, when Argentina enacted emergency […]

  6. […] reported a few of times on investment treaty arbitrations (the Argentina v. BG Group case, and the judicial assistance applications arising out of the Lago Agrio litigation, here and […]

  7. […] prior coverage of BG Group, readers may want to review my posts on the District Court decision in January 2011 and the D.C. Circuit decision in January 2012. Chuck’s earlier coverage of the Child […]

  8. […] Argentine sovereign debt after the country’s financial crisis. We have previously reported on Argentina v. BG Group, confirming an award against Argentina under the Argentina/UK BIT; Argentine Republic v. National […]

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Thank you for commenting! By submitting a comment, you agree that we can retain your name, your email address, your IP address, and the text of your comment, in order to publish your name and comment on Letters Blogatory, to allow our antispam software to operate, and to ensure compliance with our rules against impersonating other commenters.